Originally Posted by Souldier

You go from having the argument that not a single person has been in an accident resulting from marijuana, but once I provide statistics and crush your argument, you change your argument into cannabis users "don't drive much" as a whole. My point is that cannabis users still do DRIVE, and they DO get into accidents and they DO kill innocent people. Whether that's every 1 in 100 or 50 in 100 cannabis users that drive, it does not matter.

It actually does matter. If a medical drug kills 1 in 100 people but can save way more lives then it'll be legalized.

If MJ kills 1 in 100 people due to car accidents but makes the government so much money that they can use it to better the lives of their citizens, then it'll be legalized.

Dude, nothing is black and white. Everything has its positives and negatives, you just have to weigh the pros and cons.

Originally Posted by Souldier

You go from having the argument that not a single person has been in an accident resulting from marijuana, but once I provide statistics and crush your argument, you change your argument into cannabis users "don't drive much" as a whole. My point is that cannabis users still do DRIVE, and they DO get into accidents and they DO kill innocent people. Whether that's every 1 in 100 or 50 in 100 cannabis users that drive, it does not matter.

I'm pretty sure your point was that legalizing marijuana would INCREASE the amount of people driving while high... Funny how you ignore anyone questioning your reasoning behind that.

And again, that's still not enough reason as to why the govt shouldn't capitalize on marijuana use.

I'm not quite sure why you have such difficulty with reading comprehension... Mahratta dude wasn't saying that there ISN'T any evidence, he was just saying that IF there isn't evidence of marijuana increasing the likelihood of driving accidents, then that helps his argument more than it helps his. I don't know why that's so confusing to you.

But uh... yea, no. You did not "crush his argument."

Originally Posted by Souldier

You go from having the argument that not a single person has been in an accident resulting from marijuana, but once I provide statistics and crush your argument, you change your argument into cannabis users "don't drive much" as a whole.

Really? I do remember saying this pretty consistently:

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Again, you don't have much statistical evidence. A sizable portion of Canadians use cannabis, but there isn't a corresponding portion of accidents blamed on cannabis use. So again, either statisticians are all actually smoking pot and botching the sheets, cannabis is safer than alcohol when it comes to driving, or cannabis users just don't drive that much.

All in all, not a good argument on your part.

My point is that cannabis users still do DRIVE, and they DO get into accidents and they DO kill innocent people. Whether that's every 1 in 100 or 50 in 100 cannabis users that drive, it does not matter.

I'm sure you understood that we were arguing about most users of cannabis, not all - in fact, as a math student, I'm particularly cautious over the use of the universal quantifier!
Anyway, the nature of the accidents were not specified by the articles you provided - a fender-bender or running into a curb and then despairing and calling the police (I mean, you are high, after all) doesn't amount to "killing innocent people".
Secondly, the number does matter - from evidence that you yourself provided, 2.5% of accidents (of a general nature) are attributed to cannabis use, and from statistics I've provided, a lot more than 2.5% of the population uses cannabis. From those two statistics-sets alone, some 8% of cannabis users can be ascertained to have driven (if we assume 100% of cannabis users get into accidents, which is probably untrue) - not an overwhelming percentage, to be sure.

So, generalizing from there, if cannabis is legalized and your worst-case scenario comes true and 100% of Canadians become users, there still won't be a correspondingly significant increase in accidents.

Out of curiosity, would anyone support legalizing Marijuana if it wasn't taxed (or at least not taxed more than the standard sales tax)?

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Out of curiosity, would anyone support legalizing Marijuana if it wasn't taxed (or at least not taxed more than the standard sales tax)?

I don't think I would. At least not for leisure use. Perhaps for medical purposes since it's "required". But I would consider it in the same category as cigarettes and tax is as such even though they are completely different.

Originally Posted by Marlowe

Out of curiosity, would anyone support legalizing Marijuana if it wasn't taxed (or at least not taxed more than the standard sales tax)?

If we take economic reasons out of it, then I still have my personal opinion... Which is, **** yes I would still support it because I don't believe in govt and they can't (shouldn't ) be able to tell me what I can't and can do. ;D

Originally Posted by jhan523

I don't think I would. At least not for leisure use. Perhaps for medical purposes since it's "required". But I would consider it in the same category as cigarettes and tax is as such even though they are completely different.

Yeah, I'd consider it in the same category as alcohol.

Originally Posted by jhan523

I don't think I would. At least not for leisure use. Perhaps for medical purposes since it's "required". But I would consider it in the same category as cigarettes and tax is as such even though they are completely different.

Realistically, the government would see them as the same as well, and I think many people that are pro-legalization would be against it once a politician like Dalton gets his taxes on it, doubling or tripling the price.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

If we take economic reasons out of it, then I have no other reasoning to say **** yes I would still support it because I don't believe in govt and they can't (shouldn't ) be able to tell me what I can't and can do. ;D

Lol, it's funny how in Canada and the US we let out government control what we do but in Europe it's the people that have major control over their government (The way it should be). I remember watching a documentary on it.

But back to the topic, I agree. If there were no economic reasons behind taxing MJ then why should it be taxed? Heck why should anything be taxed? XD

Simple argument: Legalize, Educate, Regulate, Medicate.

What say our dear crusaders for moral righteousness? If thou shalt not partake of the marijuana leaf, for it is of Satan, then what of fermented grape that was so miraculously created from water some 2000 years ago? A drug is a drug, and methinks there is plenty of all-too characteristic picking and choosing going on around here...

...

Did you even say something?

Edit: Oh wait, I think you are actually FOR legalizing marijuana... Wow, we agree on something. ;o

Originally Posted by c.erl

Simple argument: Legalize, Educate, Regulate, Medicate.

What say our dear crusaders for moral righteousness? If thou shalt not partake of the marijuana leaf, for it is of Satan, then what of fermented grape that was so miraculously created from water some 2000 years ago? A drug is a drug, and methinks there is plenty of all-too characteristic picking and choosing going on around here...

Well, there should be criteria, of course - and help for those that use drugs that don't make the criteria. I agree though, that it's pretty nonsensical to advocate alcohol and not cannabis.

Originally Posted by jhan523

Lol, it's funny how in Canada and the US we let out government control what we do but in Europe it's the people that have major control over their government (The way it should be). I remember watching a documentary on it.

But back to the topic, I agree. If there were no economic reasons behind taxing MJ then why should it be taxed? Heck why should anything be taxed? XD

Yeah, I just came from Europe and its definitely a nice change to be able to go to a convenience store to buy alcohol. And I went to a few convenience stores that would put the LCBO (a dedicated alcohol service) to shame in terms of selection. The prices weren't all that much better than in Canada though (except Barcelona, which had some amazing prices).

I can understand the arguments for taxation- if you support government programs, there has to be a way to pay for them. But I don't understand the arguments for "sin" taxes (extra taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, potentially marijuana). Why should people who like to partake in those activities pay more than a straight edge person? The only arguments I've really seen are either because a) the activities are immoral (which is obviously a terrible argument), or because people who partake in those activities tend to take up more government resources (health care). However all of those activities, in moderation, have been shown to have net positive health benefits which could reduce costs (except smoking).

^ The "immoral" argument is probably the root of it, while the healthcare argument is used as a cover when people realize how ridiculous their original argument is, haha

Originally Posted by Marlowe

However all of those activities, in moderation, have been shown to have net positive health benefits which could reduce costs (except smoking).

If i remember correctly, that is only true because the people who don't binge alot on alcohol/smoking/drugs, tend to be healthier and binge less on other things, like food and whatnot. Can't find study atm, but will look for it.